Haluk L. Aka wrote:
>
> Now hold it there,
>
> I built my computer myself, used to have 4 OSs on my custom box and
> consider myself an advanced user if not accomplished one, but unlike
> you all, I don't think every computer user has to be computer
> literate.
A computer user who is not computer literate is a very minimal user.
They are the kind of people for whom "point-and-click" and
"plug-and-play" were designed, and can benefit from the stolen
interface that Microsoft has used.
However, a computer user who is not computer literate must have either
a) an utterly fail-proof system, b) a system simple enough to either
self-recover or be obviously fixable or c) someone who is computer
literate to call upon.
Microsoft doesn't satisfy any one of these three criteria -- and
neither does Linux. But... Linux is improved and worked on by a
vast array of people, which allows it to be fixed more openly and
quickly, and with each iteration aims toward a); Microsoft carefully
controls its source as a trade secret, grants the occasional patch
for major blunders, but forces a person to pay for every significant
upgrade. And from what I've seen, Windows progresses much more slowly
toward a).
Neither Microsoft nor Linux come near b)... But at least Linux is
open enough so that a problem can be located. Windows is very, very
silent, and the "blue screen of death" is too little, too late...
As for c), well... you can pay major bucks to Microsoft for inadequate
help, or you can find the local *NIX geek (or join a list like this
one) for assistance. (Microsoft Users Groups probably exist, but I've
not seen them..)
> Computer are nothing more than devices that supposed to make the life
> easier just like your car does. You get in your car start the engine
> and drive, you don't give damn about inner workings of a diesel
> engine. Infact most drivers can't tell the engine from the battery.
> Cool thing is they don't need to. Who gives a damn!!! They just drive
> the thing and when the thing get screwed up they take the damn thing
> to garage and have it fixed. And that's how/why technicians get paid.
Your example, I believe, oversimplifies the situation. While I would
suggest that computers *should* be like that, we are nowhere near that
level of ease of use or reliability with computers, and it may never
be possible to get to that level. Why? Because computers are very
complex devices, and the sheer multitude of _common_ things that can
go wrong is actually quite frightening.
And problems do occur with computers... a lot.. a WHOLE lot.. If
you were to continue with your comparison, the car would rarely be
out of the garage, as the driver would have it in for every squeak,
bang!, thump, bump, scratch, whirr, tug or humm -- most of which would
be insignficant, but because the driver had no idea what was under
the hood, they could not be assured that everything was normal...
You can also compare it to hundreds of people working on every car,
and small mistakes can lead to the engine running out of oil. Or
constantly stalling. Or the lights won't come on. Or shut off.
And you add new things onto the engine and interior, little (and
increasingly bigger) black boxes which attach to your car and use
some of its power, loading it down. And since the manufacturers of
those boxes could see what was *really* under the hood without paying
enormous fees, the boxes might not fit. Or they work slighly
differently, depending on what other boxes you have attached. Or they
interact in a bad way. Sometimes.
But when your car stops, the technician is forced to look at the boxes
and say "you have too many boxes -- upgrade your car!".
> Most of you are computer professionals I believe, you should respect
> this fact, it is those idiots who are paying your salary.
Should the computer industry be driven by mistakes mostly made by one
company? Or should the industry be based on creating new, interesting
and useful things (hardware, software, interfaces, devices, whatever)?
To use your analogy: should the focus be on fixing cars, or
designing and building new ones?
> I personally, looking at the current state of linux, don't see any
> use of it for an average computer user. The reason MS sells is that
> they make their OS so even an idiot can make use of it and use it.
Until something goes wrong. And not all idiots think the same way,
so why should they all choose the same operating system?
(After all, Linux needs a few good idiots... Right? ;)
Capitalism, the vaulted ideal of America, is being perverted... It
should be driven by consumer choice, not by marketing and backroom
deals.
And it is arguable that the newest versions of Windows are not more
useable, user-friendly, idiot-proof, whatever... Many people and
critics (not that critics aren't people...) have stated that the only
really good interface was the Macintosh, and that everything since
has just been perverting that interface...
> Why are you people are so much concerned about an OS which you'll
> never use? If you think Windows sucks, don't use it. That is
> understandable. But why complain about it?
It is not that we want to use Windows, but that it is increasingly
more difficult to do so. Linux (or at least something other than
Windows) should be allowed to fairly compete. And when Microsoft
"forces" computer dealers into all-or-nothing, preinstalled Win98
or nothing deals, it constitutes unfair competition.
> I don't like Windows95/98 myself(check my sig.) because I find them
> incomplete, as in my opinion a complete OS should have features like
> multiusership, a web and ftp server and all other networking
> capabilities, -which admittedly Win95/98 are missing. But NT on the
> other hand, has that great GUI interface that linux people were not
> able to get even close to yet and not all that terrible, at least
> have a http/ftp server built-in and buncha other networking stuff.
Last I checked, the interface under KDE was pretty damn similar to
Win98... except it was better (in terms of features, anyway... still
a little buggy). And also last I checked, the price of NT versus
98 was quite a difference, in the $100s, I believe.. (Although they
seem to be bundling NT with just about everything these days:
want a compiler? Here's a free OS with it!)
> I think the needs should be the number 1 concern here. Why is it you
> want a computer? What are you planning to do with it? What are your
> and your companies needs? The answers to these questions should lead a
> computer user to correct OS, and for the rest of us it is
> Win95/98/NT.
That *should* be the case... but the market is stilted, and software
manufacturers have swollen the Win-compatible market until there is
very few competitors.
It may, in fact, be too late for any sort of real competition...
Don't get me wrong: I think Linux has a hell of a way to go before it
can be widely accepted, and several of the points brought up in this
discussion are quite valid: GUI, user-friendly install, idiot-
proofing, software availability, etc.
But Windows, IMHO, has only three things going for it: a pretty and
fairly useable interface, a several million-dollar marketing budget,
and the force of market created by that budget. As an operating
system, it is fairly poor and behind the times; as a server it is
backwards; as a programming-friendly platform it is not.
Linux is rapidly gaining the first, will never likely get the second,
and will have to create the force of the third by being the best damn
OS++ it can.
'Cuz I believe that the good guys may finish last -- but they will
finish best.
> If you're going to do some word processing, surf the web, need
> multimedia capabilities, home entertainment etc., it is Win95/98
> you're looking for.
Why? What makes Windows any better than Linux for those? From the
OS standpoint, your word processing is likely buggy, your web browser
is from one company without choice (so you'd better like those bugs,
because they're gonna be there for a while... and OH! did you want
your desktop back? Sorry, no can do..), your multimedia players are
removed in favour of those from the OS company (heard of the Media
Player/RealMedia Player scam?), your home entertainment is bogged
down by a control-freak OS...
Granted, on Linux, your choices for software may be slimmer, some of
the bugs in the browser(s) you have may drive you nuts, some of the
newest media may not be supported (not that MS is quick to adopt
standards... at least not until they've changed them, that is...),
and the home entertainment is still forthcoming (there was a push to
make Linux friendly to games, wasn't there?).
> If you have some programming/networking needs and want a more stable
> OS go for NT.
Like I said before, a very expensive option, I believe...
> As these 3 OS are now industry standards, supported by all
> (major)hardware companies out there, and there are sh*t load of
> software available for these.
Industry standard? Who set that? By what criteria was the standard
chosen? Not on the strength of the OS, but on the strength of the
marketing...
Windows is the Pinto of OS's... with the Porshe of marketing..
> Win95/98/NT answers the needs of most computer users that's why they
> have an awesome market share, esp. in home computing.
What Linux (or other *NIX's) failed to do was realize that they could
have beaten Windows into submission years ago. I only fear that the
Redhat's of the industry aren't too late...
> Only if your needs are so special, if you need something more
> configurable (therefor not pre configured), if you think you have
> guts and knowledge to get it done, get it work; then go for linux.
More configurable.. more stable.. more abled.. more extendable... more
standard and standardized.. more widely understood (not the GUI, the
OS!)...
> I also think that we all should face the fact that it is only
> computer hobbiests(commonly called geeks) and computer professionals
> who have enough time to deal with linux. The rest of us want to get
> the things done without spending great deal of time.
Windows is currently only marginally faster to get stuff done... And
that is inversely proportional to how many other MS products I have
to use, or how complicated the things I want done, or how many
programs I want to use, or how many times Windows crashes
inexplicably and irrevocably.
> Because -well it may be hard to understand for some of you but, the
> time is most expensive for some.
Yup... And I agree that the learning curve and early usage time can
be steep under Linux... and that standards and interfaces have to be
developed to make it "simpler" to use...
Microsoft's slogan is "Where do you want to go today?".
But like the KDE slogan is "Where do you want to go tomorrow?".
> Thank you,
(Apologies for the rant.. It's late, and I should know better..)
Mark K.
--
(From the Bean Ranch on CAWFEE...)
. . . .- `. Don't worry about the world
the Encaffeinated ( ) |\| |- .' ending today... It's already
` ` ` `- `. tomorrow in Australia.
